Motee Lal Yadav, v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3335 of 2020 • Motee Lal Yadav, S/o Shri Gajadhar Prasad Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Marma, Post - Krishna Nagar (Dhamni), Block - Ramchandrapur, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. The Collector, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.

4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ramchandrapur, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh

5. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Marma, Janpad Panchayat Ramchandrapur District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate For Respondents/State :

Ms. Richa Shukla, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 25/08/20

1. The limited grievance which the petitioner has raised in the present writ petition is that he had worked as a Guruji between July, 2004 to 30th April, 2005 when his services were discontinued.

2. According to the petitioner, some similarly placed persons subsequently had filed a writ petition which stood disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners therein. According to the petitioner, while deciding the representation of those

petitioners, the respondents have granted an order of appointment in their favour which has prompted the present petitioner to approach this Court now.

3. On a query being put to the counsel for the petitioner, he states that he is unaware of the educational qualification of the persons who have been appointed and were similarly placed. The petitioner was also unable to produce any document with which it could be established that without even fulfilling the minimum eligibility criteria whether the petitioner could have been granted appointment as a Shiksha Karmi under the respondents.

4. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, since the petitioner has made a representation to the authorities, let the authority concerned take a decision on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with its merit.

5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner or on the merit of the case. The authorities are expected to pass an order purely in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the field and take a decision on the representation of the petitioner within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The respondents would also while taking a decision keep in mind whether the services of the petitioner are in fact required presently or not.

6. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Jyoti